lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:45:44 +0800 From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com> Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash bucket. On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:35:18AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > The bit_spin_unlock(), which I am avoiding as unnecessary, would have > provided release semantics. > i.e. any write by this CPU that happened before the releasing write > will be visible to other CPUs before (or when) they see the result of > the releasing write. > This is (as I understand it) exactly that rcu_assign_pointer() promises > - even before acquire semantics were added as Paul just reported. > > So yes, I am sure (surer now that I've walked through it carefully). Given that rcu_assign_pointer now does a store release it should indeed be safe. Thanks! -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists